Slashdot Mirror
Augmented Reality Billiards
scubacuda writes: "Wired.com reports that Columbia's CS Department has designed a new gadget designed to "take the brainwork out of billiards" and help the average player eventually take on professional pool sharks. The Stochasticks consists of a 5-by-10-inch laptop carried in a backpack, a half-centimeter-by-1-inch long lipstick camera and a headset. Pool experts, such as Mike Spinkle, president of United States Poolplayer Association, say that this device makes it easier to visualize the angles."
It says in the story that the developer got the idea from an 'old sci fi flick'. Actually it was an episode of Quantum Leap.
Yes it looks like it will help determine the angles, but not english or speed. A professional player will whoop you every time if you don't have ball control. However, taking the guesswork out of the angles would definitely help someone learn faster.
--
No electrons were harmed in the typing of this post.
Of course when you see an angle you only see a projection of it. For each infinitesimal angle dtheta, you have to compensate perspective by dividing by the triple-product of the vector from the angle to your eye, the vector normal to the plane spanned by the angle, and the vector in the direction of dtheta (all normalized). It you integrate this over the whole visible angle, you can easily evaluate the real angle in your head.
Maybe this will help me be able to keep from missing the cue ball so often.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
The more you know about pool, the more you realize how much more there is to the game than the angles, which are truly the easy part. It doesn't take long to develop your own way to see the angles and sink the balls, but of course you'll still miss because you get the mechanics wrong in your arm, or you miscue because you forgot to chalk, or any number of reasons.
:)
Then there's cueball action... "english" on the ball, top, draw, etc -- not only knowing how to apply various types of english, but knowing when and why. Of course, many times the "best" shot on the table, meaning the easiest shot, I guess, is not the shot you need to make and, depending on the game, it's also a foul. The most common professional game of 9 Ball, for example, requires the player to shoot the balls in numerical order, which means that, after the 3 ball goes, it doesn't matter how good the shot is on the 7 ball, because you have to shoot the 4 ball, no matter WHERE it is. You at least have to touch it, which in that game sometimes requires a fantastic shot.
So, it's no surprise that we have technology that can assist us with the most elementary aspect of the game. And it just proves that there's no substitute for learning the game through experience... not yet, anyway
RP
Connor: The 500 series had cameras on their heads. We spotted them easy. Also they were tethered to a wall, and deadly only at pool.
There are 2 different statements here:
a) that "the system" (I'm assuming an average player operating the system here) will be able to beat a pro.
This is rubbish. A crappy player that doesn't know how to handle a billiard stick properly, and still won't be able to shoot properly even with the system. Even if the computer maths are elaborate, too many variables are left to the player skills: spin control, precise control of the force applied to the cue ball, etc.
At best, an average player using the system will get the general direction where to point at and why, but that's about it.
b) It is true that the computer may be able to model accurately the problem, but it doesn't make it a better player than a human for all the reasons in a) and others.
Computer chess is a prime example that machine does not always beat man, and here the difference is even more striking because the system ultimately rely on the skills of whoever is operating the stick. You just can't approximate this margin of error.
It is true, that if you integrate this over the whole visible angle, you can easily evaluate the real angle in your head. However, we do not accept, nowadays, as it happened in the past, that our perceptive world is just the plain result of an encounter between a "naive" brain and the physical properties of a stimulus. Actually, perceptions differ, in quality, from those physical characteristics, because the brain extracts an information from the stimulus and interprets it, according to previous similar experiences.
We experiment electromagnetic waves, not as waves, but as images and colours. We experiment vibrating objects, not as vibrations, but as sounds. We experiment the beards of linux hippies, as they blow softly in the wind. We experiment chemical compounds dissolved in air or water, not as chemicals, but as specific smells and tastes. Colours, sounds, smells and tastes are products of our minds, built from sensory experiences.
They do not exist, as such, outside our brain. Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent. Therefore, we can now answer one of the questions of traditional philosophy : Does a sound exist when a tree falls in a forest, if nobody is present to hear it ? No, the fall of the tree only creates vibrations. The sound occurs if vibrations are perceived by a living being.
Information from the environment or from the body itself, is picked up by the sensory systems and utilized by the brain for perception, regulating corporeal movements and maintaining arousal. A sensory system starts to work when a stimulus, usually from the outside world, is detected by a sensitive neuron, the first sensorial receptor. This receptor converts the physical expression of the stimulus (light, sound, heat, pressure, taste, smell) into action potentials , which transforms it into electric signs.
From there, the signs are conducted to a nearby area of primary processing, where the initial characteristics of the information are elaborated, according to the nature of the original stimulus : colour, shape, distance, shade, etc. Then, the already modified information is transmitted to zones of secondary processing in the thalamus (if originated by olfactory stimuli, it is processed in the olfactory bulbs and then directly conducted to the medial area of the temporal lobe).
In the thalamic zones, older data, originated from both the cortex and the limbic system and containing similar experiences, link to the new information, in order to form a message, which is carried to its specific cortical centre. There, the meaning and importance of the new detected stimulus are determined by a conscious process of identification called perception.
Although two human beings share the same genetic and biological architecture and function, perhaps what I perceive as a dintinct color and smell is not exatly equal to the the color and smell you perceive. For example, you may like a certain Thinkgeek T-shirt with a pseudo-pithy statement about emacs on it. I may think it's lame, and that it clashes with your beard. We give the same name to this perception but we cannot know how they relate to the reality of the outside world. Perhaps we never will.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
While many have searched for an application of "wearable" computers, this sort of specialized system seems like a rather reasonable way that they can be integrated into the lives of a normal person.
Much more reasonable than the headset wearing ubergeek that is...
prosebeforehos.com
I'm not really convinced this does any more for someone than a well-written Pool simulation game on the computer. (AKA. Virtual Pool) These types of games already make promises on the box like "Guaranteed to improve your Pool game, or your money back!"
Everyone is quick to point out that the biggest flaw in PC-based Pool games is the fact that they don't simulate holding the cue and the skill required to shoot straight. So what? Same issue with this device. The skills they don't directly teach you have to be learned by practicing playing the real game.
Learning the angles, though? A $19.95 copy of Real Pool for the Playstation 2 or Virtual Pool for the PC will do it just fine.
Ah.... I remember my first joint...